About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 5, Brad Benson 2, Legislativeing 1, Sequa 1, Redevelopment 1, Kim 1, Dpa 1, Mr. Paul 1, Henry Kim 1, City 1, Portland 1, America 1, Us 1, Frazier 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    April 22, 2013
    1:00 - 1:30pm PDT  

1:00pm
understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is
1:01pm
nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come test, test, test test, test >> good morning, everyone and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for april 17th i'll be chasing this meeting and we'll be joined shortly by another supervisor.
1:02pm
mr. clerk do we have any noiments >> yes, please silence all cell phones and electronic devises. items on the list will appear on the board of supervisors meeting >> mr. clerk call item one. >> those allocations quality to participate in the frazier drive for the city and county of san francisco. >> we have jean from our city council meetings office. >> the san francisco transcribed almost $3.1 million and the airport b will chair the next campaign.
1:03pm
all 5 counties meet the criteria and representatives if you should have any questions >> any questions? >> all right. we're good. we don't have a - do we have any other speakers? >> at this point we'll open up to public comment on item one please came forward. >> the city wears a fund-raisers and you got it right go in the fast lane in the golden gate practice writing principle you're a good budget you would be in the city had great fundraising and the city
1:04pm
watches the city's fundraising story and it went good and to glory and the city had such a good fundraising thing and lord you where a good fundraising man. >> city what a fine city you would be for this fundraising. >> thank you very much. public comment is closed. can we move this resolution forward. >> okay. and we can do that without oppositions. >> should i call it through 4? >> ordinance of the administration code section
1:05pm
1.100 revise the he registration fees and is next one revised registration fees and making environmental finding. >> and the next one is 2-217 to establish a fund for the penalties assessed and paid will i operators for a violations of the solid waste finding. >> thank you very much we have the san francisco agricultural commission thank you for being here. >> a bit of clarification for the third item is from staff from public health it will be me.
1:06pm
i'm the agricultural chairman and i'm here to answer any questions in regards to the agricultural products >> i actually have not been briefed on this and that's 2 and 4 for you and we should have someone else come up for item 3. >> good morning. i'm david i'm the controller for the department of public health and i'm here to answer any questions you have for the creation of the waste penalties fund. >> thank you very much i'm comfortable where we're any
1:07pm
questions? >> we do have a budget analyst report. >> mr. chairman based on estimates on item 2 will increase the revenue froilsz the agricultural spishgs certification fees by $113,000 we do recommended you pass the ordinance. and the revenue increases would go - would there by 2 the $9,379 and that would cover the costs we recommend you approve the
1:08pm
ordinance in item 4 - on page 13 of our report we point out that the department has previously collected $374,989 on personality from sold waste folks and we therefore make a recommendation to amend the ordinance to request the dpa submit an annual report so the board of supervisors knows what's in the fund and we recommend you approve the ordinance >> someone from d b.a. any questions? >> i have reviewed the propped
1:09pm
amendment and dpa should recommend it. >> thank you, mr. rows. i'd like to open up on public commit to item it through 4 >> i'm glad you've built this up you've built up the health budget up you've built it up-and-up and up and now your buckets solid. and it's still going to make it - give it all you've got. your solid as a budget rock and you give it all you got. and a thank you, mr. paul son-in-law.
1:10pm
anyone else want to commit? seeing none public commit t is closed. can we move the budget >> yes i'll move the budget. >> we can move without objection and now move the other items. >> item number 5 resolution approving the second amendment between the transportation agency and the powers for the center pursuant to charter section not to exceed to 5 hundred 3 hundred and 77 there's for the period of july 2009 through december 31, 2017.
1:11pm
>> we have mr. kim. >> thank you i'm henry kim i'm here behavior of the board to execute this transit pursuant to charter section 118. this intuitive was authorized by an enter governmental services and overhead inspection and engineering services and traffic services for the terminal transit project. the second amendment is related to project management construction management and engineering. this amendment was authorized by
1:12pm
mta board by a resolution 13 - 118 and also at amendment on february 13th and this amendment is consistent with the previous adopted amendment by the board. so that's pa brief presentation that i'm happy to a answer any questions. thank you and a calling any questions on item number 5? >> okay. thank you very much. to our budget analysts >> members on page 17 we report that those specific types of services to be reimbursed to the mta are shown on the table and that's on page 18 of the report and it's hone the total estimated costs are $2.1 million
1:13pm
which would be reimbursed to the mta based on the services provided. we recommended you approve the resolution >> thank you very much any questions? >> seeing none? i'd like to a open this up to public commit >> step by step we're going to fix the transit system to step by step we're going to fix the transit program two. step one we give it this budget sum step 2 take away the transit budget blues. step four make the transit better than it was before. step 5 keep the transit system alive. step by step going to get the
1:14pm
budget approved. step by two we're going to fix the transit system, too. thank you very much anybody else? >> seeing none we're joined by committee and colleagues can we take a motion to move item 5 forward. okay. mr. clerk can you please call item 6 >> item number 6 resolution adapting guidelines for the establishment and use of the financial district on land for under the jurisdiction of the san francisco port commissioner. >> okay. thank you very much. i know we have brad benson and we'll give you a moment to set
1:15pm
up >> thank you very much. good morning, mr. feral i'm brad benson i'm here representing the port staff. i'm just going to load my presentation here.
1:16pm
so we're here to talk about proposed policy for infrastructure 49 districts along the port. this is a policy that the port has been working on trying to develop on the state level and now legally since 2005. and infrastructure financing district are a little bit like redevelopment. under a state law a city and county can form a subdivision to finance like new roads and parks. and the method of financing is exactly how it was in
1:17pm
redevelopment law the infrastructure growth can capture new growth for periods up to 45 years. and the difference compared to redevelopment is property taxes are divided into a number of recipients the state gets a property tax dollar and the remaining $0.10 is divided up between the school district and community college district. and under an infrastructure financing district typically the only increment that can be captured is the $0.65. you can't capture the money it goes to schools or to the
1:18pm
community college district. so it's property taxes can be used to a finance infrastructure through bonds or on a pay as you go basis. the ports are structured a little bit differently. redevelopment focused on providing affordable housing. by state law 20 percent of the increment must be spent on parks, bay assess and the remove of bay fill. as you know there's significant historic contamination along the port property. so in 2005 is when we first went up to try to develop the tool and it was really based on the
1:19pm
work that the director and cf o director did in the first 10 year capital plan. the plan says the structural financial plan is not in its operating budget it's instead the bag log of capital improvements needed to bring the port property up to compliance and this chart there's two charts the one on the top with the red and blue the red shows total need along the port which is above $2 billion and the blue is the funding sources we've been able to identify. the chart below is a break out
1:20pm
of the blue portion of the chart above. you'll see that i f did say major source we're looking to improve the water front. we've been legislativeing over time. that authorized you to fund the port property and it expanded the range of eligible use of tax increments with respect to the america's cup 80 to ask the state if it would allow infrastructure districts to capture the state that quarter
1:21pm
of property tax dollars that goes up to the state and 801199 the state approved our ability to capture that tax increment under certain circumstances. >> i want to provide a little bit of the background between the ports fund. the bureau ton act which transfers from state to city control requires that we maintain a separate harbor fund it's separate from the city's general fund. we've done analysis over time to look at property taxes and the cost of city services on port property. there's a bit of a gap.
1:22pm
there's some sources that are urban leashed and don't generate tax precedes. and there's a cost of providing city services in that budget. and we try and track that over time. there's a general prim the harbors shouldn't subsidize or excuse me. the general fund shouldn't subsidize those services. the improvements to piers and seismic upgrades there in the
1:23pm
capital fund also like along with historic properties listed on the national register. so as we are thinking about forming districts along the port property and the first proposed districts will likely be considered in 2014 so we're a ways away from requesting the styrofoam a districts. there would be a policy framework everybody sort of accepted there would be community oversight but those structures don't exist so we're
1:24pm
going to propose local districts to answer those issues. there are some just a few minutes properties where it might making make sense to include those ports particularly pier 70 but there's guidelines. we're suggesting that it's a policy decision for the board of supervisors when a district it formed whether to apply the port guidelines or the city's guidelines. next important we have to complete sequa. so we can't bring to you a set of without first analyzing the improvements.
1:25pm
any improvements we have should be consistent with the public tries doctrine the 10 year capital plan and that's making sure we're proposing policy that's been adopt. next, we suggest that those are major master plans redevelopment areas in many respects and there ought to be a burden on the city to show there's a economical he - and we should demonstrate where we collect property taxes we need to be able to assure that the cost is covered by other taxes or you at least know
1:26pm
what the financial trade offices are when your foreman a district. in those areas where we're able to capture the state share of property tax we would suggest the way that the states structured that ability was to say the states share could be made available in proportion to how much the increment we dedicated locally. we want to any other time the local distribution. number 7 on this slide is the key of what we sort of the heart of the policy. we're using tax increments to essentially purchase infrastructure that is built by our partners. and it's private equity it's an
1:27pm
expensive form of financing. developers earner an annual income of 18 to 20 percent we're suggesting here we decade the full amount to pay off that private equity as quickly as possible to be as efficient in financing those improvements as possible. we're generally using the value of port property to pay that developer return fda law has real constraints so we're using the portland value to pay developer return. there will be in the districts literally hundreds of thousands of the dollars available after the infrastructure has been fined so in the year thirty
1:28pm
there be significant amounts of funds available so the seawall will be funded as well >> thank you for your presentation just a question. could you walk us through an example of how this about be carried out on rapid, you know, reimbursements. >> yes. i actually have sort of the cost estimates for infrastructure investment in each of the 3 big projects that are coming a little bit after this slide so when i get to those slides i'll talk about how
1:29pm
the developer will justice the equity and then how we will buy the infrastructure. so we think there's a big policy call to be made about where the excess fund also the city seawall is beyond it's life so the city may want to make improvements to the city seawall. i'll skip over that. the p the p the pay increment will be available. it's important that

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)